Open Letter to Supervisor Peter Adam

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Article Tools

I was disappointed to read your comments in a recent Lompoc Record article questioning the sovereign nation status of Native American tribes. It is unbelievable that such statements would be made in any context, but I am especially disappointed to see them come from an elected official. I appreciate and respect free speech and the freedoms that come with being citizens of this great nation of ours, but publically espousing such misinformed views only serve to minimize the very real and brutal history of repression that Native Americans have endured.

The ugly truth is that Native people were placed on reservations that look nothing like their original homelands. In regards to the Chumash Nation, I would remind you that their original land base spanned from Paso Robles to Malibu and inland to Bakersfield. But that is not the land they live on today. Instead, they were provided with 99 acres of land of which a large percentage was and remains a river bed.

As for the tribal sovereignty, I could not be more appalled by your statements. Long before European settlement changed the landscape into what is now this great country of ours, tribes lived on their land as sovereign nations with unique and rich histories and customs. A long body of federal statutes and case law have recognized and upheld the sovereignty powers of Native American Nations.

As the chairman of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, I stand with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, and urge you to apologize for your hurtful remarks.

California Assemblymember Luis A. Alejo represents the 30th District (D-Watsonville) and is chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus.

Comments

I rarely agree with Supe Adam on anything, but writer Alejo goes way over the top and should consult a few attorneys. It's complex, but the various federally recognized [an entire separate huge issue!] Native American Tribes do have a unique and quasi-sovereign status. I have always supported the Santa Ynez Band and their development, even the Casino, but they go FAR to far now in fee-to-transfer on the Camp 4 property. I ask Mr. Alejo: do any of these not-fully-sovereign tribal governments have their own Army/Navy/AirForce? There are many crucial parts of being a fully "sovereign nation" that have never been given to any of the wonderful tribes. And what about the equally important tribal members, e.g. of the Chumash, who aren't federally recognized? The Santa Barbara and the Ventureno bands? They share almost nothing of the marvellous monies the SYV federal tribe now enjoys: and I'm glad they have these monies. Adam almost always goes to far, but he is correct that none of these tribal governments are fully sovereign.Oh yeah, and the the proposed 12-storey tower addition to the Casino, it's clearly a big middle finger at other Valley residents. Armenta, Cohen, they're just another 1% group, but their corporation is the SYV Chumash federal tribe. I want you guys to do well, but no you don't get to add 1400 acres willy-nilly to the Rez., just develop it under SB County rules like everyone else up there. Sad what the supposed "stewards" of the land are doing to it, and what they plan to do with it.

Well, you’re making too much sense, DrDan. Oh! And you’re being too kind. I was just going to use some ad hominems like “what in the H does Watsonville and/or the Salinas Valley have to do with Santa Barbara County?”, and maybe “why in the H is a “Latino” corking off about the tribes his ancestors helped decimate?” (Maybe a racial guilt complex?).

likely Alejo is making points with "his guys" -- although, how does a representative of one Sovereign state [USA, Calif., Watsonville] have the pendejos to assert more "rights" to another supposedly competing [if quasi-] soverereign state? What Native American groups will be funding Alejo's next election? How did they back him in the previous one? Can't we get these campaign finance records for Alejo?And I remind you, I am FOR the Native Americans.

Dan, I think that you were going for cajones or huevos, pendejos makes no sense. This writer is simply expressing his opinion that Adam's comments were absurd, which clearly they were. Adam, like many of his teahaddist fellow travelers, has a very vague understanding of the US constitution and US history.

Pendejo is a single pubic hair. In Mexico´s slang it is used as an insult like idiot or fool, but in Peru´s slang it used to describe a smart guy with few or no scruples ...but H-G, you've said nothing about the sovereignty issue, which is the issue, nicht Wahr? Agree, Adam understands little, but in this one he landed right side up for the first time.

One may be a pendejo, but if he is bold he is said to have cajones. Tribal sovereignty is granted by the federal government and there is not much the county can do about that except for lobbying the federal government to change their policies.

The Santa Barbara County supervisors had their chance to cut a deal and they overplayed their hand. Now they are going for an expensive last ditch effort through the courts which has little chance of success.

It is too bad that California Assembly member Luis A. Alejo disappointed and appalled but Supervisor Peter Adam was correct in raising the issue of re-examining the Fee to Trust for Indian Tribes. The Federal Government established Fee to Trust to help impoverished Indians get off the welfare rolls, not to help wealthy Indians get off tax rolls. Unfortunately that process has become a financial drain on states. Our local Chumash Tribe is asking the Federal Government through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is run by Indians, to allow them to bring the 1400 acres known as Camp 4 into Fee to Trust. The Chumash are a tribe that would classify as being in the top one-tenth of one percent of income in the entire United States, yet they want to remove this acreage from the tax rolls which places a financial burden on the rest of the tax payers in this county. This land would not be subject to any local rules, regulations or taxing if brought into Fee to Trust. The Tribe would be allowed to build anything they desired on the property without having any County oversight.

It is past time to re-examine the Fee to Trust process and stop this granting of land to tribes that do not need financial assistance. We are all citizens of the United States and we should all be treated equally. Most of the members of the Chumash are living off the reservation and have assimilated into and are part of the community where they live.

It is too bad that California Assembly member Luis A. Alejo is disappointed and appalled but Supervisor Peter Adam was correct in raising the issue of re-examining the Fee to Trust for Indian Tribes. The Federal Government established Fee to Trust to help impoverished Indians get off the welfare rolls, not to help wealthy Indians get off tax rolls. Unfortunately that process has become a financial drain on states. Our local Chumash Tribe is asking the Federal Government through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is run by Indians, to allow them to bring the 1400 acres known as Camp 4 into Fee to Trust. The Chumash are a tribe that would classify as being in the top one-tenth of one percent of income in the entire United States, yet they want to remove this acreage from the tax rolls which places a financial burden on the rest of the tax payers in this county. This land would not be subject to any local rules, regulations or taxing if brought into Fee to Trust. The Tribe would be allowed to build anything they desired on the property without having any County oversight.

It is past time to re-examine the Fee to Trust process and stop this granting of land to tribes that do not need financial assistance. We are all citizens of the United States and we should all be treated equally. Most of the members of the Chumash are living off the reservation and have assimilated into and are part of the community where they live.

The indigenous movement is global, and it doesn't matter what outdated Santa Barbara NIMBYS think or feel. You need to realize that there is a new sheriff in town and that this sheriff is global. Indigenous people are not playing by your rules anymore. Real governments elect their county supervisors to be leaders. Sometimes leading involves compromise, something a NIMBY has never experienced.

"Article 201. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop theirpolitical, economic and social systems or institutions, to be securein the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development,and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economicactivities."http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/d...

Sorry nativeson, I should learn to embrace diversity and co-exist with my south county neighbors. Keep telling us how great Poder, La Raza, and the Water Guardians are. We are pretty ignorant up here..

Native American Indians are mentioned in the constitution. The original relationship between the Native Indians and the British Government were subsumed by the new US government. Under the British government, the Native Indians were given their own sovereign territory. (I don't know if anyone remembers Bush II explaining what sovereignty means.) It is not a case of them having their own army or navy, but having the final say of what goes on in their own territories and to implement their own laws. There are examples of other sovereign countries surrounded on all sides by a different country - e.g. The Vatican, Monaco, Lesotho, etc. (I don't think any of those countries have an army or a navy.) In fact, at one time it was suggested that affairs between the US and the Native American territories be handled by the State Department.

"When the United States government formed, it replaced the British government as the other sovereignty coexisting in America with the American Indians.[22] The U.S. constitution specifically mentions American Indians three times. Article I, section 2, clause 3 and the fourteenth amendment section 2 address the handling of "Indians not taxed" in the apportionment of the seats of the House of Representatives according to population and in so doing suggest that Indians need not be taxed. In Article I section 8, clause 3, Congress is empowered to “regulate commerce with foreign nations…states…and with the Indian tribes.” Technically, Congress has no more power over Indian nations than it does over individual states. In the 1970s Native American self-determination replaced Indian termination policy as the official United States policy towards Native Americans.[23] Self-determination promoted the ability of tribes to self-govern and make decisions concerning their people. It has been argued that American Indian matters should be handled through the United States Secretary of State, the official responsible for foreign policy.[citation needed] However, in dealing with Indian policy, a separate department, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has been in place since 1824.This has been in place since 1824."

Yes, the author is correct about the extent of land once occupied by the Chumash tribe. What they received in compensation for losing all of that land is a joke, and the 1400 acres for homes for them is not unreasonable. There are standard mechanisms for them to acquire the land legally via the BIA (without a casino).

If some people are squawking and squealing about the 1400 acres, then possibly they should respect the legal manner that the Chumash are employing concerning 1400 acres they bought, as opposed to the 7,000 square miles that non-Chumash appropriated illegally, for a paltry 140 acres in return. Come on, show some grace.

nativeson, my point is that the game is different with the indigenous people compared to the usual opponent. You are entitled to your own opinion, of course. If I didn't want Native Americans building an albatross in my back yard, I would negotiate. Good luck with your strong arm tactics, they have worked well for you in the last 20 years. Custer didn't see the consequences of his dandruff problem either.

good points tabatha, but it remains that there are 137 members of the SYV Tribe, they already do OWN this land and they can do plenty with it. You may not be up on all that goes on up in the SYValley, but Armenta and Sam Cohen have been caught fibbing before. YOU don't live there (nor do I), few believe Armenta's casual comments, "oh, we won't expand the Casino there". He's a CEO, he's doing what he can for his 137 tribal members. It's rather easy, and even disingenuous, of you to suggest others "show some grace". You might show some understanding and grace yourself on this issue.

nativeson, that was a stupid comment on my part, for sure. On another note, your posts are some of the best here IMO. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, your wisdom is certainly appreciated.

Sadly, a rather simplistic viewpoint from the Member from Watsonville. He would benefit from an indepth course in California history with a special emphasis on the Spanish and Mexican periods and what happened to the Indian lands under those regimes. Also of interest would be a course in archeology to gain an understanding of pre-Columbian Indian history.

And although the Member proports to support free speech, his letter essentially tells the Supervisor to shut up about the subject of Indian soveneignity. Telling someone to shut up is more appropriate of a dictatorship than a democracy.